Pages

Mandela Joins the Ranks of Good Communists

By now, you should all know the drill. Lefties glorify some communist leader, by picking out the one or two policies he promoted, that the general public would agree were noble ambitions. Of course, the whole time, they ignore every terrible atrocity he ever committed.

They have to, you know. If the lefties were to allow people to view any communist leader as a whole, people would judge him as a whole, and come to the conclusion that he was a terrible, evil person.

Now it might be possible to excuse some of the things communists leaders may have done during times of war. After all, they did have the enemy trying to kill them. Thus the saying, “All’s fair in love and war.”

Communists leaders cannot be fairly judged by what they may have done in war as they attempted to gain power (their opponents were often guilty of the same things), but they can be judged on how they behaved after they were in control, and here’s where any argument that extols the

virtues of communism falls apart.

Freedom and liberty are words that are thrown about by people of every political stripe, but it becomes obvious who truly believes in the rights and well being of the common man, by observing how leaders of countries act, once in power.

Once the struggle for power is over, the necessity for a government to kill, imprison, or threaten those who may disagree with it, is over, if the government is fair and just . If a government maintains policies of intimidation against its own people, you can be sure that, that particular government does not believe in freedom and liberty for its people, and is only interested in maintaining the power of the people in control.

I was in the lawn and landscape business for years, and if there was one thing I learned, it was not to fight nature. You can do so if you wish, but it will be a constant battle against the forces of erosion, how plants tend to behave, and other persistent factors that will fight you 24/7 until the day that you finally give up and admit defeat.

It’s the same way with governments. People are as much of a part of nature as the bears in the woods, and they will think and behave the way they want to, regardless of how the government wishes they would act. People value the freedom of being able to believe and behave as they like. A government that attempts to force people how to think and behave, is fighting nature, and eventually, it will lose, just like the homeowner that who wants to have grow lush grass under a large maple tree, or wants to plant tomatoes near a walnut tree.

People will either actively or passively fight an oppressive government 24/7, regardless of how much they are intimidated. If the Soviet Union couldn’t keep a communist nation together for even a century, no one can. Just like a homeowner who refuses to learn from the mistakes of others, and is going to attempt to realize his “vision” no matter what, communists leaders keep popping up, trying to make the dreams of Lenin and Marx come true. The only difference is that the homeowner truly wants what he claims to want. What the communist leader really wants is to be in power. The actual circumstances of the people under his control are secondary concerns, at best, and will always be lower on his list of priorities than maintaining his own power. The end result is invariably killing, imprisonment, torture, and other forms of intimidation, all because the damned people won’t behave the way he wants them to behave.

This is why the United States and other western democratic, capitalistic societies are both practically and morally superior to all others. They’re not just different but equal, or even inferior, as lefties would have us believe. They’re better, and the proof is in the fact that they don’t routinely kill or intimidate people who disagree with them, and the fact that the lefties here are still alive, is proof of that. The only people to whom this is not obvious are those who refuse to see it.

So when judging which governments are fair, right, and just, all we have to do, is ask ourselves does the government in question need to rely upon intimidation of its people in order to assure its own existence? If you maintain that all governments do this at least to some degree, then ask, which governments rely upon force and intimidation the least? This is a good time to remind everyone that any laws proposed here in America that rely upon forcing the entire population to do something that the majority does not want to do, and using intimidation to ensure compliance, should be questioned. (Forced participation in a government run healthcare system comes to mind.)

So now we’re supposed to mourn the “loss” of Nelson Mandela. Give me a break. You have a choice here, you can believe all the crap that the mainstream media has been force feeding you for decades, or you can believe this. It’s up to you, but the track record of the MSM, why would you believe them? Mandela was what all communists are, a lying, torturing, murdering, piece of crap.

Apartheid, apartheid, what about apartheid? Mandela was good because he was instrumental in ending apartheid, and therefore we can overlook anything else he ever did right? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe that what replaced the white government in South Africa is any better? Why? Because they no longer have apartheid? That’s like saying that someone who has developed cancer is better off than before, when they had the flu.

What was so bad about apartheid anyway? There, all you liberals, and otherwise uninformed idiots who rely upon the MSM as your only source of information, I asked the question. As soon as you get done gasping for air, and feigning your horrified disbelief, I will ask it again. What was so bad about apartheid anyway? Although I cannot hear you right now, I will tell you (especially if you were among those who felt shocked by my question), your answer is bullshit.

Here is what was bad about apartheid. It denied a group of people the rights and freedoms that all people should be able enjoy. Did you notice that I did not mention race there? A government denying any group of people their God given rights and freedom for any reason is a criminal activity and no reason any better or worse than any other. How is denying people of their rights because of their skin color, any worse than denying people of their rights because of their political beliefs?

Mandela and his followers were no better (and arguably were worse) than those that they replaced. Mandela was directly connected to murder, intimidation, and torture, and never denounced others who continued with those practices in South Africa, until the day he died. He was every bit as much guilty of denying the rights of other people as former white government he helped bring down.

Now don’t get me wrong. The former white government of South Africa was racist and wrong, but they at least made South Africa the strongest economic force on the continent. From what I have seen a strong economy does more for the lowest classes of people in a country than anything else. If you think Mandela and his crew did anything real to actually help the blacks in South Africa, read this.

Mandela was a communist, and communists never improve the lives of anyone, not even the people they claim to represent. We’ve seen it happen in Russia, China, Cuba. What makes anyone think that it could ever be different in South Africa? Communism goes against human nature, so it always has to use the tools of murder, intimidation, and torture to ensure its existence. More people have been killed, and more rights have been denied in the name of Communism than almost anything else. That is why it is true, for the sake of life and liberty...